A Fair Deal for Everyone

A Fair Deal for Everyone

Prosperity and Dignity in Migration

Policy Paper 131

Autumn Conference 2018

A Fair Deal for Everyone: Prosperity and Dignity in Migration

Policy Paper 131 Autumn Conference 2018 0

Contents

1. The Liberal Democrat Approach to Migration........................................ 1

2. Social cohesion ........................................................................................... 7

3. People who migrate for work ................................................................. 12

4. People who migrate to live with their family ....................................... 16

5. People who come to the UK to study..................................................... 21

6. Seekers of sanctuary ............................................................................... 25

7. People without migration status ........................................................... 33

8. Machinery of Government ...................................................................... 41



1. The Liberal Democrat Approach to Migration

1.1.1 Liberal Democrats believe that migration can work for everyone. The

preamble to our constitution states: “… we are committed to fight poverty,

oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur

and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services.

Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other

countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a

durable system of common security.” No-one should be enslaved for life by

where they were born in the world. From the millions of British people who

live and work elsewhere in the world, to the millions of migrants contributing

to our country today, the movement of people across the world has worked to

enrich the lives of everyone – including those who have chosen to stay put.

1.1.2 However, migration today is not the peaceful, equitable, ordered

guarantor of durable security that our constitution envisages. Fuelled by the

failure of governments to spread economic prosperity widely, some people

feel that their concerns about employment, housing, and social and welfare

resources are somehow linked to immigration. There has been an alarming

rise in hostility to all immigrants, including some British people settled here

for a generation or more.

1.1.3 Government migration policy has led many British people to lose trust in

the migration system and to sense that things are out of control. The

arbitrary, unachievable and damaging Net Migration Target of “tens of

thousands” bears a great deal of responsibility for this; as has the

demonization of “illegal immigration” that is embodied by the Conservatives’

hostile environment policy. To be clear: “illegal” immigration is, by definition,

migration outside of the law and so Liberal Democrats oppose it and will seek

to stop it. But, to do so, we need to understand what it truly is. Most people

tarred with the “illegal immigration” brush are not criminals: for the most part,

they are either people who have overstayed their visa, having entered the UK

legally or vulnerable victims of people trafficking. Asylum seekers whose

claims have not been determined are not “illegal”. All these people’s situations

have to be addressed effectively and with decency. The real criminals are

organised, exploitative gangs and we would target resources at shutting these



down. We are frustrated that the current Government has talked up illegality

without defining it or acting properly to tackle it.

1.1.4 This paper builds on past policy – not least Policy paper 116 Making

Migration Work for Britain (2014). We showed there how we might rebuild trust

in the migration system and develop a more liberal migration system to

strengthen the UK economy. In other recent policy motions Conference has

advocated investing in improving English language skills amongst those

moving to the UK1 to aid integration, working with local authorities to

welcome refugees,2 and meeting our obligations to provide asylum to those

fleeing persecution including to all those who would face persecution because

of their sexuality or gender identity.3 Multiple language skills are an asset, for

the person, the economy and the country, and should be actively encouraged.

1.1.5 Migration into the United Kingdom from other countries has been

hugely beneficial to both our society and our economy. People who have

chosen to live in the United Kingdom have enriched our culture, our

communities and have made a huge contribution to public life. Some of the

people who come here go on to achieve greatness: think of Olympic Gold

medal winner Mo Farah, Nobel Prize for Literature winner Kazuo Ishiguro,

prize-winning architect Zaha Hadid or Konstantin Novoselov who won the

Nobel Prize for Physics for the development of graphene at Manchester

University. Many more people choose to make the UK their home and don’t

grab the headlines in the same way, but still affect our lives in a variety of

positive ways: whether that is by contributing to the economy, enriching the

country’s culture or simply through forming families with other UK residents.

1.1.6 Since February 2017, British Future have been conducting a National

Conversation on Immigration: a nationwide consultation that is intended to

better understand people’s views about immigration and to establish how the

UK might build a greater consensus on immigration policy. The process has

found that approximately half of the population see both the pressures and

1 Policy motion Learning to communicate in English (2017) 2 Policy motion Local Communities Welcoming Refugees (2016) 3 Policy motion Deportation to states which persecute on the grounds of sexuality and gender

identity (2008)

https://www.libdems.org.uk/conference-autumn-17-f4-learning-to-communicate-in-e

https://www.libdems.org.uk/conference-autumn-16-f35-refugees

https://national.lib.dm/en/article/2008/0133922/deportation-to-states-which-persecute-on-the-grounds-of-sexuality-and-gender-identity

https://national.lib.dm/en/article/2008/0133922/deportation-to-states-which-persecute-on-the-grounds-of-sexuality-and-gender-identity



gains of immigration. The remaining half is evenly split between migration

liberals and migration sceptics. Among the majority, people lack trust in the

UK’s immigration systems and believe that there is insufficient accountability;

they are concerned about numbers and local impact but recognise that there

are clear benefits. A liberal approach to migration– one that the majority of

the population can support and have confidence in – must take the views of

this group seriously. Opinions towards immigration, even among “liberals”

and “sceptics”, exist on a spectrum: broadly labelling people without engaging

with the nuance of their opinion hinders working towards a liberal consensus

on immigration. We believe that if we are to achieve a more liberal consensus

on immigration, it is important to make the migration system more effective

and efficient as well as more robust, liberal and humane.

1.1.7 If we are to build the Liberal Britain we seek, we have to fashion policies

that both remain true to our liberal values and reduce any hostility to

migrants. You can’t build a country that welcomes migrants and celebrates

their contribution, as we want to, if a significant minority is unfriendly and

even antagonistic towards them. So, our approach is ambitious – to reform

both our asylum and immigration systems radically, so that they treat people

with dignity and compassion, are fairer to seekers of sanctuary and other

migrants and more effective in preventing and resolving illegal immigration.

1.1.8 Our ambitious reforms are also driven by our anger at the shocking

failures in the Conservatives’ asylum and migration policies and systems.

These are failing long-term UK residents by spreading uncertainty and fear;

failing the health, university and business sectors by deterring the best talent;

and failing applicants through byzantine bureaucracy and unjust and

unpredictable outcomes. Successive governments have responded to people’s

fears over the immigration system, not by making it less incompetent and less

inefficient, but by making it more unfair and more expensive. Predictably,

these illiberal policies have failed, and the Home Office has become unfit for

purpose. The scandal over the treatment of the Windrush generation is the tip

of an iceberg of disgraceful decisions, driven by Theresa May and the Home

Office’s “hostile environment” policy.

1.1.9 The Liberal Democrats’ new approach will start by axing many of the

Conservatives’ ineffective and inhumane policies – from the hostile



environment to immigration targets that are impossible to hit. Along with

ditching both the net migration target and the shameful language and

demonisation of migrants that culminated in the infamous “Go Home” vans,

we would close eight of the ten immigration detention centres. The money

saved would be used to rebuild an effective, accountable Border Force, after it

has been decimated by cuts.

1.1.10 In their place, Liberal Democrats would introduce policies that are both

effective and compassionate. Examples from this paper include:

• Asylum seekers would be allowed to work – thereby treating them more

humanely, whilst saving the taxpayer millions.

• Family life would be respected again, by ending expensive income

threshold tests that have stopped family reunification and cost more

than they have saved.

• Students would be encouraged and the bureaucracy and costs faced by

colleges and universities cut, to boost our further and higher education

systems.

• People wanting to work in our NHS and our businesses would not be

prevented by arbitrary targets, and policy on work visas would shift from

the Home Office to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial

Strategy so the needs of our economy are prioritised.

• We would stop wasting taxpayers’ money on idiotic demands for

detailed documentary evidence of residency going back decades for

people who have clearly been in the UK for decades.

• A new body will set up to make decisions on asylum claims and

administer individual migration applications. We would train civil service

staff better to get decisions right first time, and quickly, with

performance targets based on a low level of appeals not refusals, saving

vast amounts of money on costly appeals and reducing human misery.

1.1.11 And Liberal Democrats believe we can make Britain’s system for dealing

with illegal immigration and people overstaying their visas both more

compassionate and more efficient. We will end the practice of the “hostile

environment” approach which includes everything from multiple expensive

and inhumane immigration detention centres to making banks and landlords

the frontline of immigration control, resulting in mistakes and unfairness on



an industrial scale. We will end the deliberately unsophisticated “fishing trip”

approach of the Conservatives that has resulted in British citizens facing

intrusive questions and outright discrimination on the grounds of race.

Meanwhile the Conservatives have slashed Britain’s Border Force, to the

delight of organised crime gangs involved in trafficking vulnerable people.

1.1.12 By closing all but two of the immigration detention centres in the UK

and opting for the more compassionate community-based solutions used

successfully in some other countries, we can save tens of millions of pounds

without jeopardising control. We would redeploy that money to an

intelligence-led and targeted approach to stopping illegal immigration at the

border while also ensuring that skilled and accountable individuals are in

place to treat people with compassion and dignity. This common-sense

approach would reduce illegal immigration and begin to restore people’s trust

in Britain’s immigration system.

1.1.13 Yet it will take much more to restore some people’s trust, and that’s

why this paper includes some policy on social cohesion. Liberal Democrats

would introduce a wide-ranging set of policies that both better support the

successful integration of immigrant communities and celebrate the benefits of

immigration.

1.1.14 Our fresh approach to integration would include a new focus on

languages – both ways. We would make it much easier for all immigrants to

learn English4 and refocus “Citizenship” tests around language skills. On the

flip side, we would seek to utilise the many languages spoken by migrant

populations to benefit of British people and the British economy.

1.1.15 Finally, it is no secret that Liberal Democrat policy is to oppose

Brexit. We regret the result of the EU referendum and believe that the public

should have the final say on the Brexit deal, with the option of remaining in

the EU and preserving the freedom of movement of goods, people, services

and capital. We believe that this freedom of movement has brought great

cultural and economic benefits to the UK and that no exit deal can match the

4 Here and throughout this paper we emphasise the importance of English language skills.

We would also support British Sign Language skills as well as the UK’s minority languages

such as Welsh and Scottish Gaelic.



benefits of continued EU membership. We would campaign for continued

membership of the EU in any such vote. Clearly the eventual outcome of

Brexit will impact migration policy. The majority of policies in this paper are

applicable whether we remain in or leave the EU, but there are some issues

that we will need to return to should the UK continue on its unwise course out

of the EU.



2. Social cohesion

2.1.1 Good migration policy benefits everyone, but history clearly shows that

immigration can lead to tensions within some communities, unless serious

attempts are made to assist integration and lead to acceptance. While the UK

has had a relatively strong record – not least with citizens from former

Commonwealth countries, and an approach which has granted full civil and

political rights earlier than many other European countries – there have also

been many failures.

2.1.2 Liberal Democrats believe Government has to be far more active in

reducing the risk of tensions arising, as well as more determined in

addressing hostility that has already developed. Liberal Democrats believe

that stronger integration policies must also be married to more concerted

efforts to celebrate the contribution immigration has made and continues to

make for the UK.

2.1 The current situation

2.1.3 Liberal Democrats are not the only ones to recognise the UK’s recent

record on promoting social cohesion has been poor: the Conservative

Government itself recently released a Green Paper on integrated

communities.

2.1.4 Yet the Government’s approach fails to address the scale of the

challenge. Recent migrants report difficulty in making British friends as,

inevitably, an established local population will already have existing friendship

groups and networks. Hostile rhetoric from Government Ministers and parts

of the media can also make people fearful of attempting to mix. An approach

to integration and social cohesion that is going to work must address these

factors.

2.1.5 While many migrant populations are very successful economically,

there is also evidence that some groups of migrants are over-represented in

deprived areas. For example, almost half of the Muslim population in the UK



lives in the 10 most deprived local authority areas.5 Research conducted as

part of British Future’s National Conversation, clearly shows that people’s

attitudes towards migration improve when they get to know migrants – so a

situation in which so much of the Muslim population is concentrated in

poorer areas is inimical to this.

2.2 Policy proposals

2.2.1 Liberal Democrats would establish a national strategy in England to

fund the teaching of English as a second language (ESOL), as an important

part of promoting integration must be to help people to speak the same

language and communicate effectively.

2.2.2 Our national strategy would include a funded requirement on every

local authority to publish a “language needs assessment” to:

• Identify the requirements for ESOL provision in the area.

• Identify target groups and plan outreach.

• Encourage closer collaboration between communities, schools and local

authorities.

• Provide asylum seekers and refugees with low levels of English with a

minimum of six months free ESOL classes from the point at which they

apply for asylum.6

2.2.3 Liberal Democrats would devolve responsibility for administering

English Language lessons to local authorities and, where possible, to

community groups accredited by OCN (the national organisation that creates

and awards qualifications). We would encourage these groups to work more

closely with employers to help improve the standard of English among their

employees.

5 The Muslim Council of Britain’s British Muslims in Numbers (2015) reports that 46% (1.22

million) of the Muslim population resides in the 10% most deprived, and 1.7% (46,000) in

the 10% least deprived, local authority districts in England, based on the Index of Multiple

Deprivation measure. We should not fall in to the trap of treating all Muslims in the same

way, however, as they are not a single homogeneous group. 6 We support the entirety of the policy motion Learning to communicate in English (2017)

https://www.mcb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/MCBCensusReport_2015.pdf

https://www.libdems.org.uk/conference-autumn-17-f4-learning-to-communicate-in-e



2.2.4 Alongside a new English teaching strategy, Liberal Democrats

would develop a migrants’ languages strategy. This would seek to

celebrate and benefit from the languages offered by new migrants, both to

assist two-way integration, but also reap economic benefits from the

diasporas living in the UK. Our migrants’ languages strategy would:

• Provide seed corn funding for native English speakers to learn a second

language from teachers from within different diaspora communities.

• Support the many informal language schools already run by

communities themselves, linking funding partly to whether such schools

open up to the wider community.

• Train language teachers from diaspora communities to enable them to

engage in formal teaching in mainstream schools.

2.2.5 We would also establish new diaspora-based trade advisory boards, to

enable migrant business leaders to contribute to the UK’s trade policy and

performance. We would invite people with first hand native knowledge of a

country and appropriate expertise to assist British trade policy and

delegations to those foreign markets.

2.2.6 Liberal Democrats believe that government should address barriers to

entering public life and use language that celebrates minority communities.

Government also needs to ensure proper representation within organisations

that represent or create legislation affecting communities. This process starts

in schools, and we would support local authorities and NGOs to run

educational projects that highlight the contribution of migrants to the UK

throughout the country’s history.

2.2.7 We also need to reflect the concerns of the community groups and

NGOs who specialise in promoting social cohesion. Such organisations play an

important role in bringing communities together and – due to a severe lack of

funding – they are currently lacking capacity to do so. Incremental increases in

funding for such groups will support local projects to foster understanding

between, government, communities and minority groups. This approach is

particularly effective for promoting interfaith work, which has a strong record

of promoting integration and understanding between communities.



2.2.8 There is evidence emerging from British Future’s work, that people are

more welcoming of migrants when they see that they are committed to

making the UK their home and working towards citizenship. At present, this

process is convoluted, expensive and difficult – for example, one hurdle is the

“Life in the UK test”, which asks a series of irrelevant questions that the

majority of people born in the UK would struggle to answer. We would expand

ESOL and conversational English courses so that they also usefully teach

people about the practicalities of life in the UK: signposting people to relevant

services and explaining how to access them and teaching about their rights

and responsibilities here and the UK’s liberal democratic values. The Life in

the UK test would be revised to reflect this.

2.2.9 One method the government has historically relied upon to promote

social cohesion is the Controlling Migration Fund, an investment into areas of

high migration to help local infrastructure cope. The aims of this fund are

laudable. However, as we might interpret from the breakdown of the Brexit

vote, many of the communities that harbour the greatest concerns about the

effects of migration are those with relatively low inflows themselves. A more

constructive use of additional funds might be to invest in communicating with

these groups about the positive impacts of a healthy mixed community.

2.2.10 We recognise, as emphasised in policy paper 129 A Rural Future:

Time to Act (2018) that there is a special problem of integration in rural

communities. We support the policy proposals included in that paper to tackle

this. We also recognise the work that has been carried out in this area in the

past, such as the MIRA project (Migration and Integration in Rural Areas) and

propose restoring funding for this type of work in rural areas.

To promote social cohesion, Liberal Democrats would:

• Establish a national strategy in England to promote the teaching

of English as a second language (ESOL).

• Develop a migrants’ languages strategy to reap economic

benefits from the diasporas living in the UK.



• Establish new diaspora-based trade advisory boards, to enable

migrant business leaders to contribute to the UK’s trade policy

and performance.

• Make seed corn funding available for native English speakers to

learn a second language.

• Allow English language lessons to also teach people about the

practicalities of life in the UK and ensure that any tests reflect

this.

• Invest in measures aimed at promoting participation by ethnic

minorities in the democratic process.

• Make funds available to local authorities to reward local

community groups who develop innovative and successful ways

of promoting social cohesion, including in rural areas.

• Promote better diversification and intermixing of housing stock,

so that immigrants on low incomes are not ghettoised, but are

encouraged to mix with people from different backgrounds and

with different life experiences.

• Support projects in schools that educate students about the

history of migration in to the UK.



3. People who migrate for work


3.1.1 The current system of work permits under Tier 2 of the points-based

system is not working. This is partly because it has been used to try to meet

the Conservatives’ net migration target, with its ridiculous monthly work

permit caps. By itself, this is causing increasing damage on Britain’s public

services and businesses – as it is much more difficult and expensive for them

to find people in sectors where there are serious skill shortages in the UK.

3.1.2 Indeed, many employers see the Conservatives’ bureaucratic and

inefficient work permit system as one of the worst and most damaging

government regulations they face. This isn’t just hitting growth and the taxes

Government has to spend on our NHS, it is also indirectly starting to hit

everybody in the country.

3.1.3 Many sectors are highly dependent on migrant labour: the UK’s health

and social care services employ many people from both inside and outside

the EU, whilst the hospitality, tourism and agriculture sectors all currently

employ large numbers of people from elsewhere in the EU. These sectors all

face severe shortages in the workforce without the ability to straightforwardly

employ people from outside the UK.7 .Indeed there is evidence that the NHS is

already struggling to engage enough doctors from abroad.8

3.1.4 Equally, there is no evidence that a migrant workforce suppresses

wages and so even less justification for the way the Conservatives have

operated work permits.9 However, the Government should have been doing

7 The King’s Fund (2017) has estimated that 5.6% of the NHS workforce is from the EU as is

7% of the adult social care workforce, KPMG’s Labour in the Hospitality Sector (2017) details

how reliant this sector is on EU workers, Indian restaurants are struggling due to the

difficulty chefs face in applying for Tier 2 visas, and the House of Commons Library’s

Migrant workers in agriculture briefing note (2017) highlights the importance of migrant

labour to the agricultural sector. 8 The BBC has recently (April 2018) reported that immigration rules are hampering their

ability to recruit doctors. 9 Dustman, Fabbri and Peston’s The Impact of Immigration on the British Labour Market

(2005) was the first systematic study to show that immigration had no statistically

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/brexit-implications-health-social-care

http://www.bha.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BHA-EU-migration-final-report-170518-public-vSTC.pdf

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7987/CBP-7987.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43898969



far more to reassure people on this with proper enforcement and

strengthening of the minimum wage laws – this is why it is Liberal Democrat

policy to double the number of inspections on employers to ensure that their

workforce is being paid at least the minimum wage. Moreover, there are also

policies that should be developed to meet the skills shortage domestically,

building on the work on apprenticeships and advanced apprenticeships led by

Vince Cable when he was Business Secretary.

3.1.5 Our whole approach to the way migration supports the economy needs

to be more flexible and able to deal with future challenges. The possibility of

Brexit and the dawn of automation may very well make the UK a less

attractive place for people from abroad to move for work. Our policy needs to

be able to respond to these future pressures.


3.2.1 Liberal Democrats would begin our reform of work permits by

moving policy responsibility from the Home Office to the Department for

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). This department already

has much better links into what skill shortages industry and commerce face.

We would moreover place an obligation on BEIS to consult regularly with

other Government departments to ensure it also was assessing the needs of

the NHS and the rest of the public sector properly too.

3.2.2 Liberal Democrats would also reform the current Tier 2 points-

based system for work visas with a system modelled largely on Canada’s,

which would bring back some of the previous positive aspects of the

points-.based system that have been lost The Canadian system not only

looks at the labour and skill needs of the economy, but also places merit at

the heart of its migration system. Candidates receive points according to their

level of education, ability to speak English, work experience, age, whether they

have a job offer and “adaptability” – whether they come with family or already

significant effect on the employment outcomes of UK-born workers and this has been

borne out by subsequent studies. The University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory argues

that there is no evidence that migration has a substantial impact on wages.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/



have family in the country. This new system would continue to support intra-

company transfers.

3.2.3 We would also borrow from the Canadian approach to temporary

workers, not least because it has similarities to the old British system for

skilled workers in short supply. This would, for example, help restaurants

seeking specialist chefs from outside the EU. We would also promote a British

version of Canada’s International Mobility Programme – identifying

occupations for which people can be hired without needing permission from

the government: this might include researchers, health and social care

professionals and other workers with in-demand and specialised knowledge.

These workers would be initially eligible only for fixed-term contracts and the

list of occupations would be regularly reviewed so as to flexibly meet changing

labour-market demand.

3.2.4 We would end all existing practices, where currently the Home Office

actively discriminates against this type of migrant worker. The Home Office’s

abuse of section 322(5) of the immigration rules, for example, where highly

skilled workers are being deported or refused permit extensions by

categorising them as a security threat if they have made minor errors on tax

forms, is a classic example where the culture of the Home Office has been

infected by Theresa May’s policies of arbitrary targets and caps. We would

establish a new non-political organisation with responsibility for the

processing of visas (for more detail see §8.2.4).

3.2.5 People who come to the UK to work bring with them a variety of skills.

We restate our proposal to launch “Training up Britain”: a mentoring scheme

that would be aimed at using highly skilled migrants to develop the skills of

British workers. This would be a recognised accreditation for the development

of skills by UK graduates and apprentices gained by working alongside highly

skilled migrant workers. The scheme would be voluntary and organisations

that participate would be recognised by a kitemark. A more skilled UK

workforce would diminish the temptation for employers to advertise positions

abroad and we would prohibit the practice of UK employers only advertising

positions abroad.

Liberal Democrats would:



• Replace caps on work-related visas with a Department for

Business-led policy of identifying sectors with serious skill

shortages – for the economy and public sector.

• Replace the Tier-based system with a merit-based system and

a temporary workers scheme, along the lines of Canada’s

system, to provide a more flexible and higher quality work

permit system.

• Establish a “Training up Britain” programme – a mentorship

scheme to get highly skilled migrants working with British

workers to help them develop their skills.



4. People who migrate to live with their family

4.1.1 There are a wide variety of situations in which people may seek to bring

their family to live with them in the UK, and this makes family migration one

of the most complex types of migration to address.

4.1.2 In this section, we focus on the family members – partners/spouses,

children and elderly dependents – of British citizens or those who hold

indefinite leave to remain (permanent residence) in the United Kingdom. We

also consider the rules around registration of children as British citizens.


4.1.3 During the Coalition, there was a major though unreported

disagreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats over

reforming the rules for family reunification. The Conservatives wanted to

make it much more difficult, complex and expensive for families to be

together, whilst Liberal Democrats argued that the then-system was already

one of the toughest in the world, not open to abuse and, if anything, already

damaging to family life for some people.

4.1.4 In Government, after losing the “in principle” argument when Theresa

May dug her heels in, we fought to ensure the threshold was set at the lowest

level of income whereby the applicant was no longer eligible to recourse to

public funds through mechanisms like in-work benefits; the Conservative

wanted a much higher threshold.

4.1.5 The amended rules required the British citizen partner of a non-EEA

partner/spouse wanting to come to the United Kingdom to show a minimum

income of £18,600 gross or savings of £62,500 or a complicated mixture of the

two. The £18,600 figure was “justified” as a figure that ensured a family would

be able to support themselves in the UK, and not place any additional cost on

the taxpayer. The threshold rises if non-British citizen children are

accompanying them. And, partly because the system is so complex, the Home

Office makes multiple mistakes in assessing applicants – adding to costs,

delays and misery.



4.1.6 The rules are restrictive as they do not take account of the particular

circumstances of each applicant, any third-party support that would be

available, or any earnings potential of the migrant partner. They discriminate

against young people who, for example, meet their partner while studying

abroad, and they often mean children are separated from one of their

parents for months and even years.

4.1.7 In addition to requiring that there be no reliance on public funds, the

current rules to bring an elderly dependent parent to the UK require that:

1. The applicant must as a result of age, illness or disability require long-

term personal care to perform everyday tasks; and

2. The applicant must be unable, even with the practical and financial help

of the sponsor, to obtain the required level of care in the country where

they are living, because it is not available and there is no person in that

country who can reasonably provide it; or it is not affordable.

4.1.8 In our policy paper 116 “Making migration work for Britain (2014)” we

argued that the current rules are too restrictive. We maintain that position.

These conditions are almost impossible to meet and they cause a great deal

of heartache to the relatively small number of families affected: a 2016 Home

Office review showed that across 2013 and 2014 an annual average of only

162 such applications were granted, compared with a still relatively small

number of 2,300 prior to the new rules.

4.1.9 Regarding the registration of children as British citizens, Parliament has

legislated through the British Nationality Act 1981 and its subsequent

amendments, so that:

(i) Certain children have an entitlement to register as British citizens,

and

(ii) There is a discretion for the Secretary of State to register children as

British citizens if they apply.

4.1.10 We recognise that many children are prevented from applying because

of the high fees, currently set at £1,012.




4.2.1 The Liberal Democrats would return the Immigration Rules for

settlement visas for spouses/partners to the pre-July 2012 position with

regard to income, reducing delays and inefficiency in the Home Office

and stopping families being split up.

4.2.2 The rules before 2012 required the applicant spouse or partner to

show there would be no extra recourse to public funds in the United

Kingdom. This would achieve the aim of no additional burden on the taxpayer,

without an arbitrary income threshold, while allowing applicants flexibility to

meet this requirement. This may mean relying on a job offer to the non-EEA

partner, or on third-party support, or through the particular circumstances of

the couple, for example if they have free accommodation and therefore the

living costs are lower.

4.2.3 There would continue to be restrictions on extra recourse to

public funds until the migrant reaches indefinite leave to remain

(permanent residence) after five years. No extra funds could be claimed

from the Government to support the spouse during these five years.

4.2.4 Regarding elderly parents, we propose that we maintain the

following requirements:

(i) The applicant must provide evidence that they can be adequately

maintained, accommodated and cared for in the UK by the sponsor

without recourse to public funds.

(ii) If the applicant’s sponsor is a British Citizen or settled in the UK, the

applicant must provide an undertaking signed by the sponsor

confirming that the applicant will have no recourse to public funds,

and that the sponsor will be responsible for their maintenance,

accommodation and care, for a period of five years from the date the

applicant enters the UK if they are granted indefinite leave to enter.

4.2.5 However, we will amend the requirement that the parent “must as a

result of age, illness or disability require long-term personal care to perform

everyday task” and the additional requirements that even if those



circumstances exist, they should look to obtain that care in the country where

they are living.

4.2.6 We propose a new system for elderly parents where successful

applications must show:

• A parent is over state retirement age.

• The British-based sponsor gives a legally-binding undertaking that

they will support the parent without recourse to public funds.

4.2.7 More restrictive rules would be applied to those under the age of state

retirement age but they could still have a successful application if they were

not emotionally, physically or financially reliant upon the state.

4.2.8 For family visitor visas, we also see the family case for extended

visitor visas for grandparents, and would consult on a “Grandparents’

Super Visa”. We would develop the existing party policy to introduce a

“grandparents’ super-visa” for a period of up to two years, linked to a potential

payment of an actuarially-assessed health levy, alongside options for

extending six-month visas by a further three months at a time, rather than the

current rule of no extensions at all.

4.2.9 We would consult on this proposal for an actuarially-assessed

health levy. We understand the desire of parents to be able to join their

children, as we recognise extended family units are an important source of

emotional and practical support. However, the UK has an ageing population

and changes to the migration system won’t work if they have the potential to

impose significant extra burdens on health and social care services.

4.2.10 The Liberal Democrats also propose that the cost of nationality

registration for children is limited to that which covers the

administrative costs of processing the application. This is currently

estimated at £372. We will also introduce the ability to apply for a fee waiver

for those children who can demonstrate they cannot afford even the

administrative cost – we would expect this to be particularly important for

children who are in care.



To make family migration more humane and efficient, Liberal

Democrats would:

• For spouse and legal partner settlements, replace income

thresholds with the pre-2012 rules, with the “no recourse to

public funds” test able to be met in various ways.

• For dependent adult relatives, amend rules to make them less

restrictive for elderly parents living with their British children,

keeping a “no recourse to public funds” test, and consulting on

an upfront actuarially-assessed health levy.

• For family visitor visas, consult on a new “Grandparents’ super

visa” enabling grandparents who can be adequately supported

to visit for a period of up to two years on condition of payment

of the actuarially-calculated health-levy.

• For registering a child, we would reduce the fee so it only

covered the cost of administration, with a fee waiver for those

who prove they cannot afford any fee.



5. People who come to the UK to study

5.1.1 Higher Education is one of the UK’s most successful exports. The UK

economy is estimated to gain an extra £25bn a year from students travelling

to the UK to study (Universities UK, 2014-15). Plus, there will be further,

unquantified benefits from UK-educated foreign graduates later in their

careers. Indeed, many other countries now recognise the benefits of foreign

students to their economies and so there is fierce international competition to

recruit students from other countries, especially other English-speaking

countries like the USA and Australia.


5.1.2 Regrettably, the Conservatives’ policy and rhetoric around foreign

student coming to the UK has become so negative it is damaging the UK’s

higher education sector. Liberal Democrats warned this would happen and

that it would, for example, encourage students to apply elsewhere – and

universities reporting that this is already happening.10 And this is not just

explained by Brexit: students from some non-EU countries are being put off

coming here.11

5.1.3 If Brexit happens, this will only get worse – with the greater freedoms

and opportunities provided within the EU for research and co-operation being

reduced. While top teaching staff and researchers in global academia will still

want to come to the UK, universities fear it will become more difficult to be as

competitive creating even more damaging long term economic consequences.

5.1.4 One of the most controversial elements of Theresa May’s attack on

foreign students coming to UK to study here has been including student

numbers in her target number for reducing immigration. Liberal Democrats

have always argued that this doesn’t make sense because students are only

here temporarily, yet the Conservatives argued, contrary to evidence, that

10 2017 UCAS figures showed a 4% decline in the number of EU students applying to study

in the UK. 11 For example, according to the most recent HESA statistics there has been a drop in the

number of students coming to the UK from India and Nigeria. Meanwhile the most recent

figures from Australia show a 13% increase in applications.

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/11-01-2018/sfr247-higher-education-student-statistics/location



students are a key source of illegal immigration, asserting that many overstay

their student visas.

5.1.5 The Home Office’s latest estimate based on new exit checks at Britain’s

borders, is that fewer than 5,000 students, or 3% of the total, overstay.12 Thus

the Conservative policy of keeping students in their target doesn’t make

sense, even on their own terms. It is these illogical elements of the

Conservatives’ immigration policies that make Liberal Democrats so angry

about Britain’s current unfair and disgraceful system.

5.1.6 There is some evidence that limits on the amount of time foreign

students are allowed to do paid work during their studies (20 hours per week)

and limits on how long they are allowed to stay after graduating has put some

off. Currently international students are permitted to work in the UK for a

maximum of four months after the completion of their course or until the

expiry of their visa – whichever is sooner. After that period, international

students are only able to stay in the UK if they successfully apply for a Tier 2

visa.


5.2.7 Liberal Democrats would reverse the Conservatives’ approach

towards foreign students, from a policy of deliberately discouraging

students to a new encouraging approach. Liberal Democrats would start

this, by stripping the Home Office of responsibility for policy on student

visa and migration policy and give this work to the Department for

Education.

5.2.8 This would begin with the language of Ministers and lead on to a

new partnership agreement with UK universities and colleges, to repair

the damage by the Conservatives and to develop a new strategy to maximise

the UK’s competitiveness for academics, researchers and students.

5.2.9 A key element would be to make the system more efficient and reduce

the idiotic bureaucracy. We would create within the Department for Education

12 Home Office, Second report on statistics being collected under the exit checks

programme

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/second-report-on-statistics-being-collected-under-the-exit-checks-programme



a dedicated Student & College Compliance and Liaison Team to support

education institutions to administer international visas, to reduce costs and

make the system more effective. This would enable Government to target

better any remaining “bogus” colleges and courses. Given that administering

Tier 4 visas currently can cost universities as much as £500,000 per year,13 this

would produce substantial savings to the taxpayer.

5.2.10 In our new partnership with universities and colleges, we would

focus on quality – both for the UK and the student. We have concerns that

some institutions offer foundation and pre-sessional courses as a way of

circumventing the need for a student to be appropriately qualified for the

course just to generate the fee income. While not essentially an immigration

issue, it is an issue of fairness and our country should not be exploiting

foreign students.

5.2.11 For foreign students, we would ask the Departments for Business

and Education to commission jointly a review on the evidence on limits

on time working during and after their course, to see how big a barrier

these are. We would introduce new student visas that would enable students

to stay in the UK for up to two years after they have graduated. If students do

not find work within six months, they would be expected to return to their

home country. After the initial two-year period has expired, we would expect

those who can contribute further to be successful in applying for a work visa

under the new points based system.

To make student migration work for the UK’s economy and

education sector, we would:

• Make the Department for Education the lead department, with a

policy objective of encouraging foreign academics, researchers

and students to come to the UK and report student migration as

a separate category of migration.

13 Time Higher Education reports that the University of Nottingham spends £500,00 per

year, the University of Manchester spends £485,000 per year and other universities spend

similar amounts.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/student-visa-red-tape-costs-some-universities-ps500000-year#survey-answer



• Develop a new partnership with UK universities and colleges,

including a new Student & College Compliance and Liaison Team

in the DfE, aimed at reducing bureaucracy and costs for the

sector, and to improve compliance with the rules.

• Create a new tier of visa for post-graduates to stay for two years

after their course, and review existing time limits on work during

and after study for all other students, to assess the evidence on

how big a barrier these are to attracting students.



6. Seekers of sanctuary

6.1.1 The UK was a founder signatory to the United Nations Geneva

Convention on Refugees and we have had a proud record of providing

sanctuary to many asylum seekers over many years – from Jews

escaping Nazi Germany to people escaping brutality in countries in the

former Yugoslavia.

6.1.2 Article 1 of the Geneva Convention defines a refugee as “a person who

owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,

nationality, or membership of a particular social group or political opinion is

outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is

unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country [and return to it]”.

Liberal Democrats firmly support this and aspire to a new and improved

asylum system to both uphold that commitment, and minimise any abuse in

the system.

6.1.3 As an internationalist party, we believe the UK should prioritise work

with other countries to reduce the causes of people needing to seek asylum,

by addressing war and poverty everywhere in the world, while supporting

countries to build resilience. From continuing to support the UK’s legal

commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid, to our

international climate change programmes and work in the EU, World Bank,

UN and elsewhere, the UK must redouble our efforts for peace and progress

globally.

6.1.4 Climate change is going to add to the push factor for flows of displaced

people towards Europe. International cooperation is the only way to address

these global problems. There can be no such thing as a national approach to

these issues: cooperation with other countries is essential. Seekers of

sanctuary who reach the UK from other continents have come through other

countries; people trafficking is a matter of extensive international networks;

and the numbers involved require international cooperation in responding.

6.1 Current situation

6.1.5 The good news is that the current Conservative Government continues

to engage properly with our partners to promote peace and progress around



the world. With the alarming exceptions of Brexit, FCO cutbacks and the

erratic behaviour of the former Foreign Secretary, it does seem that, for now,

the Conservatives appear to remain committed to key policies like the 0.7%

aid budget.

6.1.6 Nonetheless, as far as their management of Britain’s asylum

system generally goes, the Conservatives have got it seriously wrong –

making it far too harsh and unwelcoming, as well as expensively

inefficient.

6.1.7 While there are many examples of the harsh regime, arguably (apart

from immigration detention, see §7) the worst is the longstanding policy that

asylum seekers cannot work while they wait for a decision on their claim. They

can apply to work only if the initial decision is delayed for twelve months, and

even then, only for jobs on the Shortage Occupation List – which is a highly

restrictive list of jobs, out of reach of almost all asylum applicants.

6.1.8 But it’s more than just this employment restriction. From housing to

access to education, the UK’s system for supporting people waiting to have

their asylum claims heard is very unwelcoming, given that many of these

people have suffered trauma and great suffering.

6.1.9 Not only do we treat asylum seekers poorly, the Home Office has a

shockingly poor record on correctly assessing their claims. In both 2016 and

2017 approximately 40% of appeals against asylum decisions were upheld.

This is an unacceptably high percentage of decisions for the Home Office to

be getting wrong: it is vitally important that as many decisions as possible are

right first time, as it saves time, money and prolonged misery.

6.1.10 Finally, the system is riddled with nasty, unfair elements that

Conservative Ministers continue to defend despite the evidence being they

are not necessary. For LGBT+ applicants, there can be a culture of disbelief

about their sexuality; for Christian converts, the Home Office appears

astonishingly unsympathetic; for children wanting their parents to join them,

the UK Government is outrageously opposed to copying the rest of Europe in

allowing such family reunification. We need to ensure that caseworkers

making these decisions have the appropriate training and skill set to

understand the key issues and to question sensitively.



6.1.11 With respect to conflicts like Syria the UK has failed lamentably to play a

leadership role in helping asylum seekers, even though the UK only has

around 20,000 to 30,000 asylum seekers seeking protection in the UK a year, a

low figure relative to most other European countries.

6.1.12 The Government’s response to the crisis in Syria - a 2015

announcement that the UK would take 20,000 refugees from the country by

2020 - was a welcome step in the right direction. However, this step also

reveals the shortcomings of the UK’s current approach: our offer was

significantly below offers of homes made by some other European countries

and it created a two-tier system for refugees, with those seeking asylum from

Syria effectively being given a better service than refugees from other conflicts

or regions.


6.2.1 Liberal Democrats would establish a dedicated unit for dealing

with asylum applications that will work with DfID, with the aim of

improving the speed and quality of decision-making without the threat

of any political interference. We would invest heavily in training and

recruitment, to develop a cadre of specialist, highly trained staff better able to

assess asylum claims quickly and accurately. We would focus on developing

emotional intelligence in staff and bringing new personnel and thinking in to

the workforce as a means to encourage first time accuracy.

6.2.2 Liberal Democrats would give seekers of sanctuary the right to

work three months after lodging their application. Not only is this the

right policy to give dignity to people who may have fled persecution and

worse, but it also makes sense for the British taxpayer. We would lift the

current restrictions on the occupations in which seekers of sanctuary can be

employed, so that they can use and develop their skills. We would also allow

them to volunteer after three months. So that seekers of sanctuary can better

support themselves, we would require all working age asylum seekers who

are able to look for work after six months. We would ensure that appropriate

safeguards are in place so that nobody who is not fit to work is compelled to

seek work.



6.2.3 In those three months before employment becomes an option for

the asylum seeker, the new unit would be required to:

• Complete an initial assessment of the applicant. If, as a result, there

were any serious concerns about the individual taking up their

presumed right to work, or evidence that they have overstayed a

previous work, student or visitor visa, the unit would have to apply to a

Tribunal to seek permission to remove that right.

• Make preparations to assist the asylum applicant into work, for example,

arranging for a National Insurance number to be issued and facilitating

access to ESOL, conversational and higher-level English, mentoring,

training and accreditation of relevant qualifications.

• Be notified of the employer by asylum applicants who find . Applicants

would still have to regularly check-in, but with much more appropriate

and convenient reporting arrangements.

6.2.4 Recognising that some people who seek sanctuary in the UK will not be

able to work – whether due to mental health or physical disability, the

Government rightly provides support. This is currently set at a level of £37.75,

unless the application has been refused when it is set at £35.59. At the lower

level, the ASPEN card which is used to transfer payments, cannot be used to

take out cash – meaning that it can be monitored. We propose providing the

same level and less intrusive type of support to all seekers of sanctuary –

while the successful appeal rate is so high it is not right to treat unsuccessful

applicants so differently to those whose application is still being considered.

We would also launch a review into the current low level of support with a

view to raising it to ensure that it is enough to live on. We think it likely that

the tax revenue raised by allowing seekers of sanctuary to work, would more

than pay for such a raise in this allowance. We restate support for our existing

policy that support rates should go up in line with benefits.

6.2.5 Liberal Democrats would provide free basic English lessons to any

seeker of sanctuary. We would start these lessons at the earliest

opportunity, so that they would be able to integrate and work in the UK as

soon as possible. Our aim would be to offer a spectrum of provision, from

structured English language tuition that’s intensive and in an education setting

to flexible language tuition for people who have work/childcare



responsibilities. Such provision can be provided by trained volunteers, if very

modest support is given to the many charities already striving to offer such

options for seekers of sanctuary and refugees.

6.2.6 For asylum-seekers and refugees unable to work due to

insufficient English, we would offer intensive, full-time English language

tuition, and scrap the 16 hours per week rule with respect to financial

support.

6.2.7 Housing for asylum seekers is notoriously poor, with too many reports

of NASS-contracted accommodation being unfit for human habitation. Liberal

Democrats would reassess all government-tendered contracts for

asylum seekers’ housing. If we find poor value-for-money contracts or

housing conditions that compromise people’s basic right to dignity, we

will end those contracts. All future contracts will be designed to be capable

of being broken down to local authority level, so that a local authority or a

group of local authorities can compete for the contracts if they wish to. All

future contracts would specify a minimum acceptable level for NASS

accommodation, based on existing laws on rental housing standards and

ending the indignity of forced bedroom sharing for unrelated adults.

6.2.8 We will also monitor the progress of community-sponsorship projects

for looking after refugees in the UK. Based on a successful Canadian model,

which brings together local groups who welcome and support refugees when

they first arrive in the country, this approach has so far helped more than a

hundred Syrian families. We will provide additional funding to Local

Authorities to support further such programmes.

6.2.9 Liberal Democrats will review and reform all aspects of current

asylum rules and operations that offend basic measures of fairness and

justice. We would seek to change the culture of disbelief that affects people

applying for asylum on the grounds of religion, political opinion, gender

identity or sexuality. So, under the Liberal Democrats, the asylum system

would, for example:

• Have a presumption in favour of family reunification except in those rare

cases where it is not in the interests of the child; seek to improve

arrangements where unification is deemed to be in the interests of the



child; implement new laws in line with the Bill introduced into the House

of Lords by Liberal Democrat peers.

• End the culture of disbelief faced by Christian converts, that

automatically appears to assume applicants are lying about their

religious beliefs.

• Not operate in a culture of disbelief and never unjustifiably state that an

applicant is not LGBT+ merely to justify a refusal.

• Never, in any circumstances, refuse an LGBT+ applicant on the basis that

they could be discreet.

6.2.10 On UK policy towards specific programmes for accepting refugees,

Liberal Democrats would review all the UK’s current programmes, and

compare them with other similar countries, to check to see if the UK is taking

our fair share. This review would take, as an absolute minimum current

programme shares and commitments – from the Gateway Resettlement

Programme to the places pledged for Syrians. The review would consider

extending the “additional offer” made to Syrian refugees to refugees from

other acute humanitarian disasters and events, for example, the Congo and

Myanmar. The review would also consider how the UK can best work with

other countries, particularly in Europe, to address other situations which can

already be anticipated such as the rapidly expanding population of Nigeria

and the impacts of climate change.

Liberal Democrats would reform positively the excellent current policy

of generously funding refugee camps in safe areas near to people’s

original homes. We want to ensure there is greater flexibility in such funding

so that refugee hosting communities could use it to fund integration

initiatives, so refugees could become part of the host country, if that was

acceptable. We want to avoid perverse outcomes where refugees and

refugee host countries can only use UK funding if it is spent in providing

support in a designated refugee camp as opposed to within the host

community outside a camp.

To improve Britain’s record on assisting people

seeking sanctuary, Liberal Democrats would:



• Establish a dedicated unit for asylum

applications, with the aim of improving the

speed and quality of decision-making.

• Give seekers of sanctuary the right to work

three months after lodging their application

• Require initial assessments by the new

seekers of sanctuary unit within three

months to cover, inter alia, any security

concerns and caseworker assistance to

prepare the individual to be able to work.

• Provide free basic English lessons to any

seeker of sanctuary.

• Offer intensive, full-time English language

tuition, and scrap the 16 hours per week rule

with respect to financial support for asylum-

seekers and refugees unable to work due to

insufficient English.

• Reassess all government-tendered contracts

for asylum seekers’ housing – ending those

that compromise people’s basic right to

dignity and ensuring that future contracts

can be broken down to local authority level.

• Review and reform all aspects of current

asylum rules and operations that offend

basic measures of fairness and justice, with

an initial focus on how the rules affect

Christian converts, LGBT+ applicants and

child-led family reunification applications.

• Increase the timescale whereby an applicant

must find their own accommodation after

receiving a decision from 28 days to 60 days

and remove the time limit entirely for

vulnerable people.

• Ensure children are able to access education

and all seekers of sanctuary can access

health care during the application process



and, if necessary, after they have been

refused.

• Expand the Syrian refugee resettlement

programme so that it covers other zones of

conflict.



7. People without migration status

7.1.1 For any immigration system to be successful it must carry the

confidence of the people already living in the country it represents. The

number of people in the UK without migration status – by which we mean

both people who have overstayed their visas and people who have entered

the country illegally and not subsequently been able to secure the right to

stay – is one of the reasons people have lost faith in the UK’s immigration

system.

7.1.2 Liberal Democrats agree that illegal immigration must be properly

dealt with, otherwise support for legal immigration and even asylum

seekers will also be questioned. While recognising that illegal immigration is

wrong and should be prevented, it is important that we treat the people

involved with dignity and do not drive them underground: this is central to

our approach. Even when deporting people, we will only do so with humanity

– following the NICER recommendations,14 seeking to keep families together,

allowing people to exhaust appeals in-country and securing safe destinations

for people to go to.

7.1.3 There are many more people who lack migration status because they

have overstayed their visa than there are people who have entered the

country illegally in the first place.15 It is important that any migration policy

deals appropriately and fairly with people who have either entered the

country illegally or whose visas are no longer valid.16

14 National Independent Commission on Enforced Removals, Additional Findings and

Recommendations 15 While there are not precise figures available for this, Oxford University’s Migration

Observatory reports that there are estimated to be between 417,000 and 863,000 people in

the UK without a migration status and that the consensus is that the vast majority of these

are likely to be people who have overstayed a visa rather than people who have entered

illegally. 16 The policies in this section do not refer to people whose asylum claim has not yet been

determined – these people do have a migration status.

http://citizensuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/NICER-Final-Report.pdf

http://citizensuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/NICER-Final-Report.pdf

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/irregular-migration-in-the-uk-definitions-pathways-and-scale/

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/irregular-migration-in-the-uk-definitions-pathways-and-scale/




7.1.4 For over a decade, Governments have attempted to tackle such illegal

immigration by making it more difficult for people without a valid visa to live

in the UK. Theresa May appears to have personally set out to make the

“hostile environment” approach to tackling this situation as unpleasant as

possible.

7.1.5 In practice, “hostile environment” policies have included checks on the

immigration status of an individual by employers, landlords, banks, the NHS

and councils, and have involved removing all access to benefits, housing,

healthcare, education and employment. While employment checks make

sense and need not unduly inconvenience employers, using hospitals and

schools as tools in the immigration system have the potential to lead to public

health emergencies and unfairly criminalise children.

7.1.6 The shortcomings of a “hostile environment” approach, especially the

Conservatives’ most recent incarnation of this idea, are now strikingly

apparent – not least in the aftermath of the Windrush Scandal, where it

appears British citizens who had lived in the UK most of their lives were

wrongly deported back to countries they had no memory of. The hostile

environment does not just impact people who are in the country illegally – it

impacts everyone who either is a migrant or looks like they might be one.

7.1.7 This outrageous situation must be radically overturned. Whilst the new

Home Secretary has moved to rebrand these policies as aiming for a

“compliant environment”, until there is significant change in policy, legislation

and practice, it is only a rebranding exercise. People will continue to suffer.

British people will be required to act on behalf of the Home Office applying

policies which do not have popular support (such as the “right to rent”) and

immigration policy will encourage discrimination.

7.1.8 It is very difficult to accurately gauge the number of people who are in

the UK who have either entered illegally or who have overstayed their visas.

7.1.9 For illegal entry, it is inherently the case, that it is difficult to know how

many people have entered. There is mounting concern however that after

significant cuts in Britain’s Border Force under Theresa May as Home



Secretary, illegal entry may have increased – especially illegal entry arranged

by organised criminal gangs.

7.1.10 For people overstaying visas, the difficulty in estimating the size of the

problem was in large part caused by a decision to abandon exit checks by

Blair’s Labour Government: this meant the Home Office could not know who

had overstayed their time-limited visa.

7.1.11 Thanks to Liberal Democrat policy pushed through in the Coalition

Government, in spite of much heel dragging from Theresa May herself, the

common-sense decision to re-introduce exit checks was taken. While exit

checks are back, it’s not clear how well this Liberal Democrat policy has been

implemented by the Conservatives or how well they are acting on the

information the checks are providing – not least because the resources

devoted to tracking down irregular migrants have also been reduced.

7.1.12 Finally, there is the system of dealing with people who have overstayed

their visas or entered the country illegally once they have been identified.

Deportation is never easy and is normally very costly. The UK has opted for a

particularly expensive and draconian model with its detention centres, where

people who are subject to immigration control may be held while they wait for

permission to enter or before they are deported or removed from the

country.

7.1.13 To give a sense of these huge costs, as part of the “hostile environment”

policy, between April 2013 and March 2017 the Government spent £523.5

million on detaining people for reasons related to migration and a further

£16.2 million on damages paid to people unlawfully detained. As well as being

expensive, the conditions in detention centres are too frequently inhumane

and degrading: overcrowding, inadequate facilities and the threat of indefinite

detention damages the mental health of detainees and contributes towards

an unacceptable number of attempted suicides.

7.1.14 In the year ending September 2017, 27,565 people were detained. Of

those who left detention in the year ending June 2017, more than a quarter

(28%) had been detained for between 29 days and four months and 1,943

were detained for more than four months. Of these people, 172 had been in

detention for between one and two years. Indefinite administrative detention



is very damaging to detainees, many of whom are already vulnerable, and its

effects last long beyond release. The UK is the only country in the EU that

practises indefinite detention and we have long opposed this: even Russia

does not indefinitely detain people for reasons of migration and the UK

should not either.


7.2.1 Liberal Democrats would end the “hostile environment” and

create new fairer employer checks that will involve employers checking

employment status of workers with Immigration Enforcement and an

assumption of a right to work until they direct otherwise. We will ensure

that any demands on people to produce paperwork are proportionate, so that

nobody is penalised unfairly for having kept less than meticulous records.

7.2.2 We would develop the exit check system fully, so the Border Force

could have a much more precise analysis of which visitors, students or

workers had failed to leave the country by the time their visa had

expired. This would involve significant investment in IT system integration

and staff training, but without accurate timely data on overstayers,

immigration rules around visas cannot be properly enforced.

7.2.3 To complement better data from Border Checks on overstayers,

we would expand and enhance intelligence-led immigration

enforcement operations. We would invest in ensuring that data systems are

joined-up – so that we have a clear record of when people’s visas expire and,

through improved exit checks, when people have left the country. This would

enable the appropriate agencies to identify those individuals who should have

left the country but who do not seem to have done so. Existing multi-agency

working – for example, with the police and minimum wage enforcement –

would also be strengthened.

7.2.4 To combat illegal entry at Britain’s borders, Liberal Democrats

would invest heavily in more Border Force officers, additional training

and enhanced technology. Liberal Democrats would want to deepen our

international collaboration against organised crime, and hope this can be

done by the UK staying within the EU. It is worth emphasising that Brexit



would weaken our abilities to intelligently manage our borders, in contrast to

what the Leave Campaign claimed.

7.2.5 Funding for this new intelligence-led approach to tackling illegal

immigration would come from two key sources: first, the savings from

not operating the expensive “hostile environment” approach, and

second, savings from closing eight of the UK’s ten immigration detention

centres.

7.2.6 Our new policy of “Detention as an Absolute Last Resort”,

involving the closure of eight of the UK’s ten detention centres, should

generate a saving of around £100 million per year. These funds would be

diverted to expanding Border Force, to improve front line border

enforcement, and to developing our intelligence-led approach. As part of this,

we would invest in training officers to deal appropriately and sensitively with

vulnerable people.

7.2.7 People without status would be allowed, in the first instance, to

continue to live and participate in their communities whilst the appeal process

is either successful or exhausted. If they reach the end of the appeal process

and have been unsuccessful they will be given a departure date. Overstayers

would have a grace period of up to two weeks provided they can explain the

overstay and demonstrate a willingness to leave. This means that people

will be able to stay in the community until they have either achieved

lawful status or there is an agreed departure date and the ability to

remove them. Only at that point would they be detained, and they would be

detained for the minimum possible period. The maximum would be a 28-

day limit on detention, but we would expect that, under our new system,

people would not normally be detained for more than a couple of nights. In

the case of violent or particularly dangerous individuals, the remaining two

detention centres would keep places so they could operate as “the absolute

last resort”. We also restate our policy not to detain vulnerable people.

7.2.8 Should an individual abscond, there will be a dedicated unit responsible

for tracking them down. Once found they will be placed in detention until the

next flight to their country of origin. In these circumstances the individual

would have forfeited the right to the support they might have enjoyed had

they adhered to the rules of the system. There will be opportunity for appeal



and oversight in place to ensure that this does not lead to the removal of

vulnerable people or people with a valid claim to asylum, but for those who

deliberately flout the new liberal system, it is appropriate that they lose the

support of that system.

7.2.9 This policy represents a radical departure from previous policy

regarding people who have either entered the UK illegally or who have

overstayed their visa. It is more humane, by abolishing indefinite

detention and allowing people to live in communities; more

economically literate by abolishing costly and inhumane detention

centres; more efficient by offering up eight large sites where housing

could replace unnecessary detention centres.

7.2.10 In some cases, people who have overstayed their visas have either

brought children with them to the UK or had children while they were here,

and – as a result – these children also have an insecure status. This may, for

example, prevent them attending university on the same terms as UK citizens.

We do not believe that this is fair: these children will often have no knowledge

of the country that they came from and are not at fault for the actions of their

parents. We propose a UK equivalent of the US DREAM Act, by which

individuals can apply for conditional resident status if they can show

that they entered the country before the age of 16, have lived in the UK

for 5 years, have attended a UK school and have no serious criminal

record.

7.2.11 Many people who enter the UK do so involuntarily or under false

pretences through no fault of their own as the victims of people traffickers.

People trafficking is essentially modern-day slavery and Liberal Democrats

remain committed to its eradication. We support measures in the Modern

Slavery Act that increased maximum sentences from 14 years to life

imprisonment. There will remain, however, a difficulty in securing convictions

while victims are concerned about the consequences of coming forward to

the police. We must support victims and treat them with compassion.



To tackle illegal immigration, Liberal

Democrats would:

• Replace almost every aspect of the

Conservatives’ “hostile environment”

approach with a new, more targeted,

intelligence-led approach to tackling illegal

immigration.

• Develop the exit check system fully, to

combat overstayers, so the Border Force

could have a much more precise analysis of

which visitors, students or workers had

failed to leave the country by the time their

visa had expired.

• Expand and enhance intelligence-led

immigration enforcement operations, to

complement better data from Border

Checks on overstayers.

• Invest heavily in more Border Force officers,

additional training and enhanced

technology, to combat illegal entry at

Britain’s borders and assist seekers of

sanctuary and others who are entering the

country irregularly to have their claims

processed and receive assistance.

• Fund this new intelligence-led approach to

tackling illegal immigration from savings

from not operating the expensive “hostile

environment” approach, and from savings

from closing 8 of the UK’s 10 immigration

detention centres, which time and again

have been exposed as cruel and

unnecessary.

• Generate a saving of around £100 million

per year, primarily for strengthening the

Border Force, with our new policy of

“Detention as an Absolute Last Resort” –



involving the closure of 8 of the UK’s 10

detention centres.

• Introduce a 28-day limit on detention, but

plan that under our new system, even this

is much longer than many people would

normally be detained for.

• Introduce a UK equivalent of the US DREAM

Act, by which individuals can apply for

conditional resident status if they can show

that they entered the country before the

age of 16, have lived in the UK for 5 years,

have attended a UK school and have a clean

criminal record

• Examine the virtue of providing

government funding to boost the capacity

of the Modern Slavery Hotline

• Introduce a very short grace period of up to

two weeks before official measures begin,

which overstayers may be able to avail

themselves of if they can provide reasoning

for overstaying or a willingness to leave.

• Invest more in exit checks to finally

establish a comprehensive system at all

points of entry.



8. Machinery of Government


8.1.1 All the best-intentioned policies in the world are worth nothing if the

mechanisms for delivering them are not fundamentally fit for purpose.

8.1.2 The Windrush scandal represents just the most recent piece of

evidence that the Home Office is institutionally ill-equipped to handle and

develop immigration policy and apply it in practice in anything but a

draconian manner. While the current Home Secretary is adopting a new tone,

this does nothing without legislative changes and proactive steps to tackle a

deeply-engrained damaging culture.

8.1.3 The overwhelming majority of civil servants working within the Home

Office across the country are generous spirited, sincere and patriotic public

servants. Sadly, due to a lack of political leadership the department has

established a toxic reputation in this policy area: immigration sceptics do not

trust the Home Office to properly enforce the rules; supporters of

immigration think the department is institutionally committed to driving down

net-migration figures regardless of the human consequences.

8.1.4 Something drastic needs to happen to change this.


8.2.1 Liberal Democrats would reduce the policy responsibilities of the

Home Office, giving policy over migration for work and to allow people to live

together as a family to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial

Strategy (BEIS); policy over people moving to the UK to study to the

Department for Education (DfE); and, policy regarding seekers of sanctuary to

the Department for International Development (DfID).

8.2.2 We do not believe that the Home Office is any longer the right

department to set policy related to every aspect of migration. They are

institutionally inclined towards making policy that is intended solely to reduce

numbers even when that is not in the country’s interests. The right

departments to make policy about the different types of migration are those

departments who have a clear view of the interests of the UK in these areas:



• BEIS would make policy relating to work visas, because that department

– through its relationship with businesses – has the best understanding

of the needs of the UK labour market. BEIS would also make policy

relating to family visas, as the ease with which people can bring their

families to the UK with them will impact the attractiveness of the UK as a

destination for work and it makes sense for the same department to

control both aspects of policy.

• DfE would make policy relating to education visas, as that department

best understands the educational landscape and is best equipped to

accredit educational institutions to accept international students.

• DfID would lead on policy relating to refugees as it is best placed to

appreciate the nature of the situations that have caused people to seek

sanctuary in the UK. We would expect DfID to work closely with the

Foreign and Commonwealth Office in this respect.

These departments would be responsible for coordinating across other

relevant departments: for example, we would expect BEIS to consult with the

Department of Health and Social Care to understand the demand for doctors,

nurses and care workers and we would expect DfID to work with the Ministry

of Housing, Communities and Local Government and local authorities in order

to inform policy related to seekers of sanctuary. One of the failures of

Government is that it does not manage cross-departmental work effectively:

we see a role for the Cabinet Office in bringing this work together.

8.2.3 In line with this approach, Liberal Democrats would replace the

Conservatives’ net migration targets, with a new reporting framework that

focuses on different net migration statistics, for each type of migration. The

Conservatives’ blunt aggregate net targets are responsible for driving

perverse behaviour in the Home Office, encouraging the hostile environment

policy approach and for diverting attention to the numbers of migrants

coming to the UK rather than the country’s needs.

8.2.4 We would take political influence out of the decision-making

process for visa applications and seekers of sanctuary. It is no use moving

policy-making to different departments if the Home Office retains control of

the process of administering and assessing applications: a hostile Home

Secretary, like Theresa May, could still use their role to frustrate this. We



propose a new non-political organisation to take the administrative functions

associated with the policy that is being made in BEIS, DfE and DfID out of the

Home Office. We would expect this to be a single organisation with two

distinct units: one to deal with administration of individual migration

applications and one to work with seekers of asylum. The new organisation

would follow a case-worker model to seek fair and predictable outcomes that

are right first time.

8.2.5 Alongside changes in departmental responsibilities for migration policy,

Liberal Democrats would actively promote a change of culture, away

from the current unfriendly, poor quality approach towards a more

normal customer friendly model, where staff see themselves as

caseworkers, there to help people navigate the system and provide

appropriate support, whatever the outcome of their application. We believe

that in the case of seekers of sanctuary, the right way to do this is by

introducing a new dedicated unit that has a specific role in supporting

refugees and asylum seekers.

8.2.6 In order to encourage a change of culture in evaluating cases and

moving towards a caseworker model there would also be recruitment

drives outside the Civil Service to attract professionals with relevant

skills and emotional intelligence from other sectors. We need to reduce

the number of agency staff, and promote a culture of professionalism. This

would mean civil servants processing visa or asylum applications would need

to be recruited at a more senior level: we propose that all such civil servants

should be Executive Officer grade by 2022 with commensurate levels of skill

and sensitivity.

8.2.7 While long-term policy-making and the functions of UK Visas and

Immigration are taken out of the Home Office, there is also a decision to be

made about the future of its other immigration-related departments: Border

Force and Immigration Enforcement. For both organisations, there is an

urgent need for culture change – however, we believe that this is possible

within the Home Office. We would transform the way that these agencies

function: ensuring that they are intelligence-led and targeted in their

approach. Both agencies have significant powers and regularly exercise them

over especially vulnerable people: for this reason it is vital that there is greater



oversight of how they exercise these powers and greater accountability for

abuse of these powers.

8.2.8 To facilitate this, Liberal Democrats would improve monitoring at

our borders so that we have much more accurate records of who is

entering and leaving the UK – as well as their reasons for doing so. Such

information is essential if we want to understand migration patterns better,

and would assist work across Government Departments. This investment

would enable Immigration Enforcement to identify people whose visas had

expired and who should have left the country, but had not yet done so –

enabling the intelligence-led approach that we believe is the appropriate way

to deal with people overstaying their visas.

8.2.9 Liberal Democrats would improve the democratic accountability

for all aspects of migration policy, focused around an Annual

Parliamentary Debate on Migration. Here BEIS and DfE will report on their

migration policies, explaining why they are set as they are and whether they

are working. DfID would report to Parliament on their policies for seekers of

sanctuary. There would also be a report made to Parliament by the Chief

Inspector of Borders and Immigration. This would improve the level of debate

in Parliament and it would ensure that the appropriate departments and

ministers are accountable for the relevant types of migration.

8.2.10 We oppose the outsourcing of government functions related to

migration. There have been particular problems reported relating to the

outsourcing of detention centres.

8.2.11 In policy paper 116 Making Migration work for Britain we advocated a

roll-out of the face-to-face visa processing based on the successful Public

Enquiry Office model trialled in Croydon, which could process an application

in two hours. Since then, a roll-out has taken place and there are seven

additional such centres. However, they are branded as Visa Premium Service

Centres, and charge an additional fee of £610. We believe that a quick,

efficient and supportive visa service should be a priority and that people

should be encouraged to take this route for their applications. We would

review where there is the demand for such centres and would substantially

reduce the additional application fee so that is no longer a barrier.



8.2.12 To bring back accountability that is about to be taken away, we would

remove from the Data Protection Act 2018 the exemption for immigration

data, which gives the Home Office the ability to block requests of any

applicant or their legal advisers for a copy of their file. This new reduction in

rights over people’s data is an affront to natural justice, offends against the

principle of the rule of law and is another example of the unacceptable

culture in the Home Office which is the main justification for removing so

many of the current policy responsibilities.

8.2.13 On completion of these changes to the Machinery of Government,

we would establish a cross-Government review of all fees and charges in

the system. Currently fees across the board are set at an extortionate rate,

making it very expensive for people who wish to make the UK their home

through legal routes to do so. This review would establish the full extent of

the efficiency savings achieved, once our proposed investment plans are

accounted for, especially our investment in training and move towards a

caseworker-model of support for applicants. We would look to use any net

savings to reduce the level of fees to as close to the cost of administering the

applications as possible.

8.2.14 The question of the citizen’s interaction with the state in the digital age

is a complex one, which requires further examination. It would be our aim to

collect and use service user data to help improve migrants’ experience of the

system – however, this needs review to ensure that migrants’ data and rights

are protected.

To improve the machinery of government

Liberal Democrats would:

• Move relevant policy-making functions to

the Business and Education departments

for migration and the International

Development department for seekers of

sanctuary.

• Take political influence out of decision-

making on applications for visas and

sanctuary.



• Hold an annual parliamentary debate on

migration at which the Chief Inspector of

Borders and Immigration and ministers

from BEIS, DfE and the Home Office report

on migration.

• Scrap the net migration target and report

migration statistics according to category

rather than as a single blunt net number.

• Invest in exit checks and intelligence-led

enforcement.

• Move towards a caseworker model that

helps applicants navigate the system.

• Provide training for staff and ensure that all

civil servants working in this role are

Executive Officer grade by 2022.

• Establish a new dedicated unit to support

seekers of sanctuary and process their

applications.




Policy Paper 131

This paper has been approved for debate by the Federal Conference by the

Federal Policy Committee under the terms of Article 8.4 of the Federal

Constitution.

Within the policy-making procedure of the Liberal Democrats, the Federal

Party determines the policy of the Party in those areas which might

reasonably be expected to fall within the remit of the federal institutions in

the context of a federal United Kingdom.

The Party in England, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Welsh Liberal

Democrats and the Northern Ireland Local Party determine the policy of the

Party on all other issues, except that any or all of them may confer this power

upon the Federal Party in any specified area or areas.

The Party in England has chosen to pass up policymaking to the Federal level.

If approved by Conference, this paper will therefore form the policy of the

Federal Party on federal issues and the Party in England on English issues. In

appropriate policy areas, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland party policy

would take precedence.



Working Group on Immigration and Identity

Note: Membership of the working group should not be taken to indicate that

every member necessarily agrees with every statement of every proposal in

this paper.

Adam Pritchard (Chair) Margaret Lally

Thais Portilho (Vice-

chair) Louise Morales

Ed Davey MP Alisdair Murray

Claire Bolt Dan Norton

Michael Bukola Fran Oborski

Sally Burnell Barry O’Leary

Tamara Dragadze Paul Richardson

Aparna Gari Keith Sharp

Russell Hargrave Rebecca Taylor

Staff

Jonathan Everett

Further copies of this paper can be found online at

www.libdems.org.uk/policy_papers

A Fair Deal for Everyone

Documents

Transcript of A Fair Deal for Everyone